On 17/4/15 16:07, Frédéric Wang wrote:
Hi all,

Here is a testcase with a dev version of GNUFreeFont:

As I understand, stretchy U+2F/U+2211/U+27E8/U+27E9 do not have a "glue"
so we connect them using a rule


but the rule thickness has the width of the parts, which leads to these
ugly large rectangles.

I don't see how a rule of *any* thickness would look good in the middle of a character such as / or ∑. See below...

What do you think? Is it a bug due to our limited implementation of the
MathVariants table (bug 963147)? Or is it incorrect for a font to
specify a stretchy operator construction without any extender?

ISTM this is incorrect. The spec[1] says that glyph assemblies are used by:

1. Assemble all parts by overlapping connectors by maximum amount, and removing all extenders. This gives the smallest possible result.

2. Determine how much extra width/height can be distributed into all connections between neighboring parts. If that is enough to achieve the size goal, extend each connection equally by changing overlaps of connectors to finish the job.

3. If all connections have been extended to minimum overlap and further growth is needed, add one of each extender, and repeat the process from the first step.

Step 3 here implies that at least one extender glyph should exist in the assembly. Otherwise, it cannot be extended beyond the maximum size achieved by step 2.

Note also that extension can only happen, AFAICT, in a straight vertical or horizontal line. It doesn't look possible to extend diagonals; and therefore only variant glyphs, not extensible assemblies, should be used for characters such as slash or Sigma.


[1] http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/math.htm

Reply via email to